borrowing a partOf relation from other vocabs is a much better and safer option IMO --
so +1 for the dc:hasPart option
-Paolo
On 9/4/12 4:18 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>
> Hi Tim,
>
> On 04/09/12 15:58, Timothy Lebo wrote:
>> On Sep 4, 2012, at 10:45 AM, Miles, Simon wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Luc,
>>>
>>> I'd support option 1. I think it has relevance to provenance, in that if you say A wasSubactivityOf B, then any information
>>> about the provenance of A is part of the provenance of B.
>>>
>>> I can't recall why we said it was out of scope before. I think the term "wasSubtaskOf" may imply the wrong thing, i.e. that the
>>> statement is about what was planned rather than (or as well as) what occurred, and other vocabularies must already cover this
>>> non-provenance assertion.
>>>
>>
>> I don't think that the relation from sub activity to activity was the concern for scope -- it was the consequences of what
>> "provenance of A is part of the provenance of B" would mean.
>
> Agreed.
>
>>
>> I would be content with a "silent" relation that does nothing but tuck an activity as part of another (why not just use
>> dcterms:hasPart)?
>
> Yes, good suggestion. This means that this relation is not part of PROV. Our FAQ/response could
> make this clear, and we could suggest the use of dcterms:hasPart.
>
>> I don't have the ability or energy to revisit all of the discussions that we've had to see how any assertion should or should
>> not apply to an activities' sub activities.
>
> The change is not trivial, and should have been considered at the beginning of the design. It was not because it was not in our
> charter.
>
> Luc